TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. United States

Jones Et Al. v. United States

Jones v. United States, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 662 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 19, 1874
Judges
Clifford
Citations
85 U.S. 66221 L. Ed. 86718 Wall. 6621873 U.S. LEXIS 1344
Syllabus
On a suit by the government against the sureties of a postmaster on his official bond, it is no defence that the government, “through their agent, the Auditor of the Treasury of the Post Office Department, had full notice of the defalcation and embezzlement of funds of the plaintiff before them, and yet neglectfully permitted the said postmaster to remain in office, whereby he was enabled to commit all the default and embezzlement,” &c.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Jones, Ramsay, and Lauterman, as sureties for one Quillian, were sued by the United States on á bond executed on 13th June, 1867, conditioned that the said Quillian should faithfully discharge the duties of postmaster at Milledgeville, Georgia, and “faithfully, once in three months, or oftener, if thereto required, render account of his receipts and expenditures, and pay the' balance of all moneys that shall c6me to his hands, and keep safely all the public money collected by him.” To the default under this bond the defendants put in the plea: “That as to any default of the said Quillian, their principal in said bond in the declaration mentioned as postmaster aforesaid, within two years before the commencement of this action, they are not liable in law therefor, but have been and are fully discharged and released, by the acts and conduct of the plaintiff, through their agent, the Auditor of the Treasury of the Post Office Department, of the said plaintiff, who had full notice of the defalcation and embezzlement of funds of tbe plaintiff before them; and yet neglectfully permitted said Quillian to remain in office as.such postmaster, whereby he was enabled to commit alL the default and embezzlement aforesaid, within two years before the commencement of this action.” To this plea (a plea of the Statute of Limitations having been withdrawn) the plaintiff demurred, and his demurrer was sustained. The overruling of the plea, and sustaining the demurrer, was now assigned for error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Clifford

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court,' to the effect that it was quite evident that the facts pleaded did not constitute any defence to the action, and that such being the settled law of the court it was not necessary to enter into any discussion rnf the question.

* Judgment affirmed.

* United States v. Vanzandt, 11 Wheaton, 184 ; Bank of the United States v. Dandridge et al., 12 Id. 64; Dox et al.

v. The Postmaster-General, 1 Peters, 318 ; United States v. Boyd et al., 15 Id. 187.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1874–1875: 11876–1877: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 31886–1887: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 11906–1907: 11908–1909: 11910–1911: 11932–1933: 11940–1941: 11942–1943: 11946–1947: 11966–1967: 118742026peak 1882 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.117 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1941)
  2. Hale County v. American Indemnity Co.63 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1933)
  3. Stoeckle v. Armstrong8 Del. Ch. 150 (Del. Ch. 1897)
  4. United States v. Sisk176 F. 885 (4th Cir. 1910)
  5. United States v. Campbell170 F. 318 (8th Cir. 1909)
  6. United States v. Leccony Smokeless Fuel Co.64 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.W. Va 1946)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Armco Steel Corporation252 F. Supp. 364 (S.D. Cal. 1966)
  2. United States v. Leccony Smokeless Fuel Co.64 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.W. Va 1946)
  3. United States v. Schendel52 F. Supp. 772 (D. Wyo. 1943)
  4. United States v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.117 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1941)
  5. Hale County v. American Indemnity Co.63 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1933)
  6. United States v. Sisk176 F. 885 (4th Cir. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Vanzandt, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 184 (1826) 62
DOX v. the Postmaster-Gen., 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 318 (1828) 58

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list